Sale of rental rights supermarket location not allowed

Recently, the Court of Appeal in The Hague issued a directional judgment for switching locations between supermarket organisations. The case was as follows.

Supermarket chain X, a discounter, enters into an agreement to transfer exploitation rights with supermarket chain Y, a so-called full-service supermarket. Among other things, goodwill, construction facilities and tenancy rights are transferred for the location in question. It is true that personnel are also transferred, but the most important personnel, the cadre, are not transferred.

Also, no stocks and inventory are taken over. After all, the business space must be delivered to Y “empty and broom clean”, as it is called. After this, Y wants to establish a supermarket belonging to its formula. However, the landlord opposes the cooperation of X taking over the tenancy rights from Y. Such a contract takeover cannot take place without the approval of the landlord. An exception to this main rule is the statutory right to request replacement permission from the subdistrict court judge by means of a substitution authorization. That claim is the subject of debate here. However, assignment is only possible if all legal requirements are met, including, among other things, a “substantial interest” in “acquisition of a company”.

The Court of Appeal concludes that in this case there is no “company” or will be taken over if only an empty business space and thus only the rental rights are taken over. The legal rule has not been written for this, according to the court. Moreover, the Court of Appeal states that insufficient weight has also been shown. The stated financial need is too brief and therefore insufficiently plausible.

This statement is certainly interesting in relation to the agreements that supermarket organizations make on the heads of both franchisees/sub-tenants and owners of supermarket locations, who feel supported by this against having to accept a tenant/sub-lessor that is unwelcome to them. The Court of Appeal has opted for a restrictive application of the statutory substitution scheme, which is perhaps also best suited to an exception to the principle of freedom of contract enshrined in the Dutch system.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020

Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.

By Alex Dolphijn|15-09-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020

Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-09-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – ​​dated August 26, 2020

In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement

By mr. C. Damen|26-08-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Mr. C. Damen – “When does the obligation to provide proof apply for the submission of the franchise agreement?” dated August 17, 2020

Does the obligation to produce information apply to showing a (franchise) agreement in proceedings if the parties to the proceedings do not have a legal relationship to the (franchise) agreement?

By mr. C. Damen|17-08-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|
Go to Top